DHHS's rule on the care of imperiled newborns has a symbolic significance for the groups that struggled for compromise, but it will have a minimal impact on medical and moral decision making.

Many news organizations invite readers to post online comments to news stories. Comments may get posted automatically and most are signed with pseudonyms. Many are insensitive, even rude, and use speculation and language that would be rejected if written by a staff member or in a letter to the editor. Are news organizations holding true to their ethical guidelines when they publish anonymous reader comments on their Web sites while rejecting them for their hard-copy editions?

Review of Piper, H and Stronach I 2004 Educational Research: Difference and Diversity Aldershot: Ashgate Publishers. £45.00. IBSN 0754633551 This collection of papers on educational methodology are drawn from two conferences, ‘Realism, Relativism or Post-Modernism’ and ‘Feminism and Educational Research Methodologies’, suitably updated and with additional material. The overview and introduction are given in the final chapter, with separate text from each editor side by side in two columns. This overview is critical, even ‘rude’ so as not to seem to (...) be 'sycophantic'... (shrink)

It should be clear that Lyell's scientific contemporaries would hardly have agreed with Robert Munro's remark that Antiquity of Man created a full-fledged discipline. Only later historians have judged the work a synthesis; those closer to the discoveries and events saw it as a compilation — perhaps a “capital compilation,”95 but a compilation none the less. Its heterogeneity made it difficult to judge as a unity, and most reviewers, like Forbes, concentrated on the first part of Lyell's trilogy. The chapters (...) on glaciation were admired by Lyell's friends but had relatively little appeal to more general readers. His discussion of the species question hedged far too much to please those who accepted the cogency of Darwin's evidence and arguments. This last section of the book blatantly lacks originality or commitment and certainly has no claim to classical status in anthropology.We are left, then, with the first twelve chapters, for it was this portion that dictated the book's title and that amassed the available evidence favoring the antiquity of the human species. Did it do anything more than marshall the evidence that others had discovered? I think not. Lyell could write with style and verve. Principles of Geology is a remarkably readable book. But Antiquity is the work of a geologist, not of a systematic student of man. Despite its occasional touches of power, it never captures the freshness and immediacy of Lubbock's Pre-historic Times nor the theoretical brilliance of E. B. Tylor's Researches into the Early History of Mankind (1865).96 Antiquity utilizes little of the comparative method whereby Lyell's contemporaries used data from modern “savagery” to elaborate the possible social functions of the prehistoric remains being uncovered. It contains little social theory and has virtually no integrated framework. Even the first twelve chapters do not really hang together. As Hooker, commenting to Darwin on Lubbock's review, sadly wrote: “Lubbock in [the] N[atural] H[istory] Review, had in a note called attention to Lyell's ... ‘doing injustice’ to Prestwich & Falconer. I modified this expression ‘injustice’ in Lubbock's paper (which was friendly and apologetic). I am deeply sorry for it, but what can one do? I do think Lyell's first XII chapters a complete mess.”97 In another letter to Darwin, Hooker described this first portion of Antiquity as “confused and confusing.”98Part of the problem, of course, lay in the subject's novelty for Lyell and for most of his contemporaries. At a deeper level, however, I believe that the book accurately reflects Lyell's uncertainties about Darwin's work and its implications for man.99 Leonard Wilson's edition of Lyell's Scientific Journals provides a unique insight into Lyell's mind during the years just before he began to write Antiquity.100 Preoccupied with the human implications of evolutionary biology, Lyell was not clear how many of those implications were compatible with his deep convictions about the dignity of man's place in the cosmos. With a certain naiveté, Lyell complained in 1873 that many of his readers had failed to see the “natural connections” among the three portions of Antiquity.101 Connections could indeed be drawn between man's antiquity and his evolutionary origins; Lyell's private Scientific Journals movingly demonstrate that he was well aware of this fact. But he never fully made the connections in his published writings. Antiquity of Man is more appropriately seen as the last gasp of the heroic period in British geology than as the opening salvo in a new, post-Darwinian anthropological synthesis. Between the founding of the Geological Society of London in 1807 and the middle of the nineteenth century, geology was recognized as one of the most exciting and innovative scientific fields in Britain.102 Lyell himself had contributed much to that drama, and by the 1860's he was a public figure of venerable proportions. More then any other man he represented a geology that had extended the boundaries of process, time, and life. The fundamental achievements of Lyell and his colleagues had been assimilated into the wider Victorian consciousness, yet the earlier public debates about “genesis and geology” had left untouched in its essentials the concept of Man as a moral, responsible, created being.103Lyell never abandoned this view of his own species, and in 1863 it was a completely responsible creature which, under the weight of empirical evidence, Lyell admitted had lived on earth far longer than had previously been thought. Certainly this more generous allowance for human existence was constitutive to what Burrow calls the evolutionary social theory of midcentury Britain.104 Unlike Lyell, the younger representatives of this anthropology quietly accepted both man's antiquity and his aboriginal animality. Herbert Spencer's Principles of Psychology (1855), as well as the other volumes of his grand Synthetic Philosophy, presented as part of the cosmic process the development of human from prehuman beings.105 Tylor's discussion of what in his Researches (1865) he called the “gesture-language” presupposed the gradual and de novo origin of language in early human populations.106 Lubbock's young and polished mind was untroubled by the human implications of Darwin's work, and he cast his Prehistoric Times into such a perfect mold that it and its companionpiece (On the Origin of Civilization, 1870) went through seven editions each between 1865 and World War I, with their original theoretical structures intact. In a way that Lyell could not grasp, Lubbock was intrigued by questions concerning the origins of moral and religious beliefs and did not flinch at the thought of an amoral, atheistic creature as an ancestor.107 Indeed, as the German naturalist Carl Vogt pointed out in his Lectures on Man, translated into English the year after Antiquity, both Darwin's theories and the primitive flint knives of the Stone Age bore witness to a time beyond that imaginable from the condition of the lowest present-day “savage”:From such a low condition [little better than anthropomorphous apes], compared to which that of the so-called savages of the old and new world is a refined civilisation, has the human species gradually extricated itself, in a bitter struggle for existence, which it was well able to maintain, by being gifted with a larger amount of brain and intelligence than that possessed by the surrounding animal world.108The easy integration of biological and social themes was perhaps the distinguishing hallmark of Victorian anthropology of the 1850's and 1860's. After his fashion, Lyell got both themes into Antiquity, but he carefully separated them with a seven-chapter wall of glacial ice. Lyell's anthropology was not that of a thoroughgoing evolutionist like Lubbock, Tylor, or Spencer. For Lyell prehistoric man was not a product of biological evolution. Rude and superstitious he may have been, but he possessed ritual and a belief in a future state, and thus deserved “the epithet of ‘noble,’ which Dryden gave to what he seems to have pictured to himself as the primitive condition of our race: as Nature first made man/when wild in woods the noble savage ran.”109As a systematic argument, Lyell's book was at best a significant failure. As a popularization, it was a success — largely because of the personal stature of its author and the particular moment of its appearance. It helped establish the fact of man's antiquity with a wider Victorian audience, in itself no mean achievement. But Lyell was unable to exploit the fuller implications of his material in the service of a secular science of man. Ironically, he exploited only his colleagues' discoveries. Though the aging Lyell, with failing eyesight but unfailing mental powers, can still be seen as a man of considerable importance, his Antiquity belongs to the carefully circumscribed world of British geology rather than to the less disciplined world of Victorian anthropology. (shrink)

An English language translation accompanies the original Greek text of Aristotle's book about the nature of the state, constitutions, revolutions, democracy, and oligarchy.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Feminist Studies 46, no. 2. © 2020 by Feminist Studies, Inc. 403 Gyanendra Pandey Men in the Home: Everyday Practices of Gender in Twentieth-Century India This article responds to a call by feminist historians of South Asia to attend to the “complex experience of family” as conditioned by age, gender, and class, and the ordinary “daily practices of gender” in the domestic arena.1 My essay focuses on the comparatively (...) neglected aspect of men’s domesticity—their performance of life in the home—as revealed in the writings and practices of prominent nationalist thinkers and activists who lived and worked in an era of militant anticolonial agitation in India. The domestic sphere, with its assigned gender roles and routines, was at the heart of major debates between the colonizers and the colonized about the meaning of culture and enlightenment. “Among rude people, the women are generally degraded; among civilized people they are exalted,” James Mill declared, in his classic statement on domestic manners.2 From Mill, writing in the second decade of the nineteenth century, to Katherine Mayo in the third decade of the twentieth, colonialist 1. Indrani Chatterjee, introduction to Unfamiliar Relations: Family and History in South Asia, ed. Indrani Chatterjee (Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004), 4; Mrinalini Sinha, “A Global Perspective on Gender: What’s South Asia Got to Do with It?” in South Asian Feminisms, ed. Ania Loomba and Ritty A. Lukose (Durham: Duke University Press, 2012), 359. 2. James Mill, The History of British India, 4th ed. (1817), edited by H. H. Wilson, vol. 1 (London: James Madden, 1848), 309. 404 Gyanendra Pandey writers dredged up the condition of women, familial relations, and domestic life in India to demonstrate the necessity of colonialist-initiated improvement and reform.3 Colonial rule thus provided the impetus for “a thoroughgoing re-evaluation of Indian ‘tradition’ along lines more consonant with [a] ‘modern’ economy and society.”4 Faced with insistent colonial critique, nationalist reformers and thinkers set out to controvert suppositions about the fallen state of Indian women and the oppressiveness of Indian homes. They also further sought to ameliorate conditions where these had deviated from their version of a glorious past. The Hindi/Urdu writer Premchand sums up the nationalist rebuttal in a 1931 essay entitled “Nari-jati ke adhikar” (“The Rights of Women”): “In fact, the Indian woman has always been considered the goddess of the home, and she has a higher status than men in the society.” For a variety of reasons, Premchand suggests, women fell from this preeminent position over time and men began to appropriate the established rights of women. “But,” he concludes, “the [new] wave of nationalism and enlightenment that has arrived now will obliterate all these [gender] distinctions, and our mothers [sic] will be re-installed in the exalted place that is their right.”5 It was in this way that early nationalist thinkers and spokespersons produced an argument about the existence of a sacred and relatively uncolonized “inner” space of Indian society, as contrasted with a more quickly changing, compromised, and negotiated “outer” space. In what is now a familiar precept in South Asian gender history, women were cast as the (predominant) custodians of “tradition” in private and in public life; men were (predominantly) the instruments of national, social, and cultural transformation in the wider, public domain. With this framing came propositions about the need for rapid progress in the “outer” realms of science, industry, and voluntary association as well as the later goals of welfare and development, secularism, and socialism. The push 3. Ibid.; Katherine Mayo, Mother India (London: Jonathan Cape, 1927). 4. Lata Mani, “Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India,” in Recasting Women: Essays in Indian Colonial History, ed. Kumkum Sangari and Sudesh Vaid (Delhi: Kali for Women, 1989), 88. Mani makes a powerful critique of the so-called “Indian tradition” and of claimed colonial efforts to improve Indian society. 5. Premchand, “Nari-jati ke adhikar,” in Vividh Prasang, vol. 3, ed. Amrit Rai (Allahabad, India: Hans Prakashan, 1980) 249. Gyanendra Pandey 405 for such advancements developed alongside a more guarded approach to change in the “inner” world and its inherited store of spiritual resources— symbolized above all... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:A Myth Of ReadingAlfred LouchThe Myth of Theory, by William Righter; x 7 224 pp. Cambridge University Press, 1994, $49.95.IThe critics mill about in the welcome break between interminable and terminal conference sessions, eager to see and be seen. William Righter wanders about, listening and telling anyone who stays to listen what he hears, musing all the while on what each of them has done, or tried to do, (...) or failed to do. One hopes for a dénouement—something, perhaps, like the tableau at the end of The Inspector General: critics frozen in typical and typically ludicrous attitudes. Alas, the prospective tone of ironic detachment is not sustained. Righter is too close to his perambulating colleagues; he shares too many of their academic reflexes to keep the requisite distance. If there is a tableau at the end, the reader must imagine it, and place Righter along with the rest, caught in (may we call them?) Gallosaxon attitudes.It seems to be an important conference. Everyone’s milling about. One wonders, do they have anything else to do? Here’s Derrida, de Man, Barthes, Hillis Miller, Booth, Bersani, Lyotard, Poulet, and Todorov. The remarks of one seem to flow seamlessly into the allegedly counter-claims of the next. It’s all amazingly friendly. Of course there’s that rude fellow Eagleton, who says: “Methodologically speaking, literary criticism is a non-subject.... If literary theory is a kind of meta-criticism [End Page 218], a critical reflection on criticism, then it follows that it too is a non-subject” (p. 210). But don’t mind him. For criticism is about literature and literature exists. So these promenading and posturing critics can’t be mere phantasms of brains fevered by much reading, or anyway by references to many books.Curious that the first critic available for a chat is Leavis. A bit of nostalgia that. I suppose most English critics of sufficient vintage recall their Leavis-inflicted wounds the way they might reminisce about the bit of shrapnel they got in the way of on Omaha Beach and bear now with pride. But my, how temperate he appears here! How on earth can he come across so bland? Remember him saying: Snow does not begin to exist as a novelist. Now that was Leavis. You may have disagreed with him, you may have thought him silly, but you certainly understood him, as one comprehends a slap in the face. But here: “... Leavis takes on vividly and personally the total responsibility of consciousness for a wide area of assumptions that obviously trail their implications behind them” (p. 4). This is an extraordinarily spongy way of saying that Leavis knew he was right, and if you didn’t agree with him, a humiliating place in a cheap and tawdry consumer society awaited you.Still, it is a lucky thing that Leavis appears first on the scene. As a critic to help frame more exactly the kinds of questions about literary theory and practice Righter wants to ask, Leavis offers an easily recognizable starting point. He somehow manages to take the high moral ground. You want to ask, how is it that Elijah’s mantle descends on him? Does he compel assent only by the stridency of his words, and not by an ostensibly rational way in which his critical judgments hang together?A pity if this should be so, because the point of Leavisite diatribes, though not their excesses, is close to the hearts of passionate readers. Such readers (ourselves perhaps) read judgmentally. A book bowls us over. Describing the experience we are tempted to draw invidious comparisons to other books, which perhaps move us less, or not at all. We say of minor things that come our way: it’s not Shakespeare (or D. H. Lawrence). If you agree the project comes to an end. If you don’t, you want to know what it is that bowls us over, and why we don’t find those qualities in your favorite author. You want an explanation of a particular kind, not one that adduces new facts, but one that allows us to appreciate how the case at dispute... (shrink)

Un des problèmes les plus controversés en bioiogie philosophique, c'est l'unité de l'être vivant. Cette unité est tout à fait sui generis. En effet, nous nen trouvons aucun analogon dans la Nature inorganique. L'unite de l'eau, par exemple, c'est sa molécule dont nous connaissons bien la formule essentielle (H₂O). L'eau contenue dans un récipient, c'est une foule d'individus. Au contraire, l'être vivant, malgré le nombre immense de molécules dont il se compose, constitue un être parfaitement un. La preuve? C'est l'unité (...) de ses activités. Elles tendent toutes au bien de l'être vivant. Mais comment une multitude énorme de molécules, dans l'être vivant, peut-elle conspirer ainsi pour assurer un résultat favorable à l'individu vivant? Comment se fait-il que ces molécules puissent garder si scrupuleusement l'ordre de succession et de subordination dans leurs interventions particulières? Les Psychovitalistes (et il y en a encore de nos jours) disent que tous les êtres vivants possèdent, au moins à quelque degré, la conscience. Cet anthropomorphisme ne trouve aucune sympathie chez les biologistes sérieux. II a déjà été refuté par Aristote. Certains autres biologistes croient pouvoir résoudre le probleme en question en réunissant les forces physico-chimiques dans une "machine". Cette théorie a quelque chose de vrai. L'organisme possède toujours quelque structure. Or la structure rappelle, par plus d'un point, une machine. Cependant outre les ressemblances qui existent entre la machine et Torganisme vivant, il y a entre eux de différences nombreuses et profondes. Ce point a été bien saisi par les Vitalistes. Aussi ont-ils mis dans chaque organisme une "force" spéciale, irréductible aux forces physico-chimiques ("vis vitalis"). Malheureusement, la manière dont ils présentent sa nature compromet gravement leur thèorie au point de la rendre absolument inacceptable. Considérant les difficultés que le mécanicisme et le vitalisme soulèvent sans pouvoir les résoudre, certains biologues ont eu l'idée de présenter une théorie qui serait capable de surmonter "le dualisme mecanicisme-vitalisme" : elle reconnaitrait la pleine validité des lois physico-chimiques dans l'ordre de la vie, mais en même temps elle considérerait l'organisme comme un tout indivisible, inanalysable et absolument spécifique: elle verrait dans l'organisation caractéristique de l'être vivant le vrai facteur de son unité, de ses régulations, de ses restitutions. Mais ce facteur ne serait pas actif, ni, à plus forte raison, transcendant à la manière de la "vis vitalise". Ainsi cette théorie serait "accessible à la science" (L. von Bertalanffy). Elle porte différents noms: organicisme, holisme, théorie de totalité (Ganzheittheorie) etc. Dans certains pays elle est en vogue, dans d'autres elle est en butte à de rudes attaques: elle est considérée comme un "concept vide", comme "un cercle vicieux" (H. Ruyer). Nous croyons que ce reproche n'est pas sans fondement. En effet, nous ne comprenons pas comment les fonctions vitales s'expliqueraient entièrement par les facteurs totalement soumis aux lois physico-chimiques. Car enfin le fait que les éléments physiques et chimiques de l'organisme sont unis entre eux par des liens de "mutuelle interaction" (L. von Bertalanffy) en vue de former un "système" , une "totalité" (Ganzheit) ne change pas leur nature foncière ni, par conséquent, leurs actions. Pour procéder logiquement, cette théorie devrait accepter le "préformisme" (qu'elle rejette). De plus, elle est incapable d'expliquer l'origine et la nature de la "totalité" . Poussée à fond, elle aboutit à une impasse ou à une contradiction. Passons à l' hylémorphisme aristotélicien. On le confond souvent avec le Vitalisme. Il est à regretter que Driesch n'eût pas inventé un autre nom pour désigner la "vis vitalis". Car "l'entélechie" chez Aristote signifie une tout autre chose. D'abord elle ne "réside" pas dans l'organisme; j'entends dire, elle ne réside pas dans l'organisme tout fait. Car c'est elle précisément qui le construit. Mais elle ne le construit pas du dehors, mais du dedans; en s'unissant à de la matière elle lui donne une "forme" particulière d'être vivant. La forme en question n'est point synonyme des contours extérieurs. Elle apporte à la matière une transformation profonde comparable au changement que subit l'hydrogène quand l'oxygène s'unit à lui en proportion de 2: 1. L'organisme qui doit son origine à l'union de la matière et de la forme possèdet des propriétés qui ne se trouvent identiques dans aucune des parties composantes. L'action que l'entéléchie exerce sur l'organisme n'est point comparable à l'action du "pilote qui gouverne son navire" (Aristote); elle n'est pas d'ordre de causalité efficiente (motrice) mais formelle. En se communiquant à la matière, elle lui détermine sa nature; elle lui indique son comportement spécifique, sa manière d'agir. Aucun organe n'agit à son propre titre, ni, par conséquent, pour son propre bien: chacun agit au titre de la "totallité" , et au profit de celle-ci. Voilà em même temps le sens profond de la finalité dans le système d'Aristote et de l'action immcmente. C'est grâce è l'entéléchie que l'organisme possède une structure supérieure è celle que nous rencontrons dans le monde inorganique. Ce dernier point ne doit pas nous créer trop de difficulté. Les biologues parlent communément de la "hiérarchie" dans la Nature, de la "gradation" dans ses créations, des différents "niveaux" de la perfection. On sait combien les partisans de la Ganzheittheorie insistent sur ce point (L. von Bertalanffy). Comme théorie philosophique l'hylémorphisme aristotélicien fait certainement bonne figure permi les théories que les modernes ont inventées pour expliquer "philosophiquement" l'organisme. A notre sens il les surpasse toutes, comme nous avons tâché de le montrer dans plusieurs de nos ouvrages sur le système d'Aristote. (shrink)

Background:Nursing is an occupation that deals with humans and relies upon human relationships. Nursing care, which is an important component of these relationships, involves protection, forbearance, attention, and worry.Objectives:The aim of this study is to evaluate the ethical beliefs of psychiatric nurses and ethical problems encountered.Research Design:The study design was descriptive and cross-sectional.Research context:Methods comprised of a questionnaire administered to psychiatric nurses (n = 202) from five psychiatric hospitals in Istanbul, Turkey, instruction in psychiatric nursing ethics, discussion of reported ethical (...) problems by nursing focus groups, and analysis of questionnaires and reports by academicians with clinical experience.Participants:Participants consist of the nurses who volunteered to take part in the study from the five psychiatric hospitals (n = 202), which were selected with cluster sampling method.Ethical considerations:Written informed consent of each participant was taken prior to the study.Findings:The results indicated that nurses needed additional education in psychiatric ethics. Insufficient personnel, excessive workload, working conditions, lack of supervision, and in-service training were identified as leading to unethical behaviors. Ethical code or nursing care -related problems included (a) neglect, (b) rude/careless behavior, (c) disrespect of patient rights and human dignity, (d) bystander apathy, (e) lack of proper communication, (f) stigmatization, (g) authoritarian attitude/intimidation, (h) physical interventions during restraint, (i) manipulation by reactive emotions, (j) not asking for permission, (k) disrespect of privacy, (l) dishonesty or lack of clarity, (m) exposure to unhealthy physical conditions, and (n) violation of confidence.Discussion:The results indicate that ethical codes of nursing in psychiatric inpatient units are inadequate and standards of care are poor.Conclusion:In order to address those issues, large-scale research needs to be conducted in psychiatric nursing with a focus on case studies and criteria for evaluation of service, and competency and responsibility needs to be established in psychiatric nursing education and practice. (shrink)

Man (Islam); Islamic philosophy; Islamic ethics.

Philosophy; philosophical theology; philosophical anthropology; history.

The book called 'The Consolation of Philosophy' was throughout the Middle Ages, and down to the beginnings of the modern epoch in the sixteenth century, the scholar's familiar companion. Few books have exercised a wider influence in their time. It has been translated into every European tongue, and into English nearly a dozen times, from King Alfred's paraphrase to the translations of Lord Preston, Causton, Ridpath, and Duncan, in the eighteenth century.

Healing Emotions is the record of an extraordinary series of encounters between the Dalai Lama and prominent Western psychologists, physicians, and meditation teachers that sheds new light on the mind-body connection. Edited by Pulitzer Prize nominee and best-selling author Daniel Goleman.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Collected sayings of Muslim Caliphs and saints.